northern-lights

> You have now excluded amazing engineers who suck at talking about themselves in interviews. They may be great collaborators and communicators, but freeze up selling themselves in an interview.

This was the norm until perhaps for about the last 10-15 years of Software Engineering.

10 years ago Reddit used to be a place where you would get informed opinions and less spam. 5 years ago, HN used to be a place where you would get informed opinions and less spam. Neither of them will go back to the same level of quality. Not anymore.

Could you mention here or DM a rough range for compensation?

Could you mention here or DM the rough range for compensation?

Not necessarily. There are costs and obstacles to moving (for example moving from India to US is extremely difficult these days).

Same here. The reality is that what company chooses to pay is the minimal amount they can get a candidate to accept for that location.

If the candidate had other better offers, then they can either reject the offer or propose a higher counter-offer. If the company received a counter-offer and chose to accept it, then this amount becomes the new minimal amount.

Over a period of time, if there are enough counter-offers (or rejections), this continues to increase. Since, the two (or however many) locations don't necessarily have the same demand or supply, it's inevitable that some location will end up with much higher compensation than others. It's the nature of free market and why some companies engage/d in hiring collusion (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-Tech_Employee_Antitrust_L...)

TPM can always store the (root) private key inside the TPM, but where will the other side of the channel (CPU, HD etc.) store their private key?

There is nothing that is safe against physical attacks practically. You can always find a point where you can do a MITM attack as the communication channels between the TPM and anything else is almost always insecure.

Hey! What would be the TC range for the Principal Engineer position and is that in EU?

Whether or not you agree about the board's decisions, you cannot deny that this has been some excellent drama to gossip over the past 24 hours, like a soap opera but with real consequences that might only be apparent years from now.

From: https://openai.com/our-structure

"Second, because the board is still the board of a Nonprofit, each director must perform their fiduciary duties in furtherance of its mission—safe AGI that is broadly beneficial. While the for-profit subsidiary is permitted to make and distribute profit, it is subject to this mission. The Nonprofit’s principal beneficiary is humanity, not OpenAI investors."

So, if I were to speculate, it was because they were at odds over profit/non-profit nature of the future of OpenAI.

"The majority of the board is independent, and the independent directors do not hold equity in OpenAI."

The biggest feature in Java 21 is the release of Virtual Threads: https://openjdk.org/jeps/444

For some reason, this is missing from the article. If there was any feature that would sway existing Golang developers to switch to Java, it would be this. It would perhaps also convince the haters of the reactive-style concurrency patterns.

It's always Deliver Results.

This has been my experience and every org that I know as well. Blind agrees too. The guy above you seems like an HR plant.

Unfortunately at Amazon, that is the norm. When the review time comes, 90% of the orgs will use the no. of Code Reviews raised and no. of commits pushed as the first line metric. Impact, customer focus and everything else is secondary.

Except there are 14 LPs and nobody says any one LP is superior to the rest. If you need to consider "Deliver Results" supreme irrespective of anything else, then it needs to be made clear. Just do away with the rest of the LPs.

It's called Survivorship bias. Before coming here, I too thought the same. That the stories were exaggerated, that those experiences were outliers and a minority. But then I saw my team's L6 SDE get put on Focus within a year of joining and leave. If they had caused Sev1s or broken something critical, then perhaps justified. But no such thing.

This place puts you in the middle of the ocean when you don't know how to swim. You either sink or swim.

Same. My team was down to 4 people and they put the L6 external hire in Focus (the informal coaching plan precursor to PIP) and he left. And we own critical services.

Perhaps the attitude instead should be: Always Be Interviewing

Everybody's replaceable. Capitalist corporations will replace you at the drop of a hat if they can. The only way to safeguard yourself is to be ready for it.

The real question is - did the company fire him for that? I'd wager a guess that it did not. So, it worked out for him.

What about Yellow? If yes, you could shorted it as RBY which is more familiar to most old genners.

Plus the existing tenured knows how to survive and navigate the politics. If they didn't, they would've never reached tenure. This is why the average tenure is so low.

Amazon knows very well how to protect itself. Most of the times you are so fed up that you will leave yourself when you are in Focus/Dev plan.

If you have another offer from FAANG-like company, then you weigh your risk of survival and evaluate accordingly.

2. is not accurate. Managers don't have to hire weak people to satisfy the quota. People are rarely ever put into PIP due to performance. Most of the times it is political.

Then explain to me how I was rated LE six months into the job when half the time I was without a manager and without ever causing a Sev2 let alone a Sev1?

Yes, agreed. I meant BR can't veto to hire for that team without HM being inclined.

Yes, perhaps I should have clarified. BR can only use the veto to make a HIRE to NO_HIRE decision. He doesn't have the veto to make a NO_HIRE to HIRE decision.

No, the OP's comment is wrong.